memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:DeSeve
Replaced speculation with supported facts New week, new issue Regarding: *"DeSeve greeting Captain Picard as "Commander" can be interpreted in two different ways. The most commonly assumed meaning of this is that DeSeve had spent so many years in the Romulan military that he was used to addressing a ship's Captain as "Commander" (the Romulan rank for such a position). Alternatively, DeSeve may actually have known Picard as a Commander, since the time frame of his defection (2249) would fit with Picard's back-story as possibly still holding the rank of Commander onboard the USS Stargazer. In either case, however, the dialogue is unspecific and the scene too brief to make a firm determination. ''" Rather than to argue this with same group of people in yet another week long circular discussion about "speculation" and so forth, like we have done a thousand times before, I simply rewrote the section (almost the entire article, in fact) to reflect the ''true nature of the character, and his faux pas. --Alan 21:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC) :Nobody argued that I saw. And you did a good job rewriting the article. -FC 04:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC) Well, not yet, hence why I cut the head off the snake before it bit anyone. But again, the lesson to take home from this is something about needless speculation, which is something one should not expect from a fellow editor after this long. Otherwise, thanks, I guess. --Alan :Well, I did try to kind of negate the speculation by saying in either case it was unclear. I was totally unaware of the cut lines from the script. How did you find about them? BTW- I should add that when I first saw this episode when it aired my immediate thought was "Ah, ha. DeSeve knew Picard when he was a Commander". Having watched the episode a few times since then, it does make a lot more sense that he had just been around Romulans for too long. -FC 14:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC) ::From MA:NOT, subsection Personal speculation: "If we don't know, then leave it blank". Often, when someone speculates in the article, it turns out that another contributor has additional information which clears up the subject of speculation. As such, if one really wants to not "leave it blank" when one doesn't know, then one can bring it up on the Talk: page first. Because, far more often than not, it does indeed turn out that it's unsupported speculation after all, which never should have been added to articlespace in the first place - especially by a fellow editor after this long from whom one should not expect such. Saying "it's unclear but here is a possibility commmonly assumed by at least one fan, and here's another possibility too" doesn't by any means at all negate the unsupported speculative nature of the content. --TribbleFurSuit 17:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC) :I'm afraid I missed the point of all that. I was just sharing that I saw the episode back in 1993 and thought that. The article is rewritten now and looks great. Doesn't seem to be any further issue here. -FC 23:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC) ::Indeed, you did miss the point: Nobody's talking about what you wrote on this page. I grant, what you wrote in the article has already been cleaned up, but that isn't the point of what I said either. Learn to fish, we're trying to teach it. Regarding the Talk: page section header, I definitely think changing it from "New week, new issue" to something that has to do with (and describes) the subject being discussed isn't exactly the same thing as editing another user's comments. But, good wikilawyering, well done. Maybe you'll in the future be just as quick to recognize the other policy, the one we're talking about here, "which is something one '''should' ... expect from a fellow editor after this long", and '''that', since you asked, "is really the point of repeating what Alan already said". But, maybe you're right. Maybe there isn't any point. People will just have to keep cleaning up after you. Though, one might wonder what the point of that would be, too, since the very thing Alan hoped to avoid does begin to threaten after all. But that's all I have to say about it, so, if it does go on for a week it won't be on my account. My own 7 hours are up. --TribbleFurSuit 00:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC) :Now that the talk page had been unprotected, I assume there is no further issue with the present content of the article. In my view, everything looks good the way it is. -FC 04:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)